Date   

locked Re: Profiles

 

Sounds reasonable. However, at one level it seems there is less privacy control than before (I'm not commenting on whether this is a good or a bad thing, just noting it), namely: currently, group members can prevent even group owners and moderators from seeing their profile (the mechanism is not important, but they do this of course by having no profile name). Whereas in the new scheme, members must allow at least moderators and owners to see their profile for that group. 

As a group owner I actually personally prefer this, but  that detail of privacy for members seems to go away with the new scheme, unless I'm misunderstanding.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 12, 2016, at 4:36 PM, Mark Fletcher <markf@corp.groups.io> wrote:

Hi All,

I've been working on improving profiles for the past few days and I need help. There are a few goals with this work:

- Some have asked for different profile photos per subgroup
- I think others have asked for customizing individual fields per subgroup. I believe this was for anonymous groups? Please verify.
- I want to support a Member Directory, which means that additional privacy controls are needed
- The current privacy control (i.e. if you have a profile name, your profile is public) is confusing and not granular enough
- The ability to specify (at least at the enterprise level) which profile fields are visible overall.

To support all this, things can get complicated and confusing quickly, which I'd like to avoid. And I don't want a system that makes it easy for people to inadvertently share info they'd rather not share.

Here is one way to accomplish all that. I'm not thrilled with it, because it feels complicated. I'd appreciate your feedback.

On each subscription page, there's a new Profile tab. Click that, and you see your profile for that (sub)group. For a normal group, the fields are copied from your main profile, the one you have now that you access by clicking your name at the top right corner. For a subgroup, the fields are copied from the profile of the parent group (which are initially copied from your main profile).

You can change any of these fields, including the photo. You cannot change the profile name; your profile name is unique to you and all your group profiles.

There's a new dropdown option for a privacy control, to determine the privacy level of your group profile. It has options like:

- Profile public
- Profile viewable by group members and parent group members (assuming this is a subgroup)
- Profile viewable by group members only
- Profile is private (but viewable by moderators/owners)

If the profile is viewable by group members, then your profile will appear in a new member directory for the group. Profile privacy is no longer dependent on whether you have a profile name or not. The profile name is still useful, for preventing imposters (it will be displayed with your profile), and in the future for a feature where people can mention you by @profilename and you'll get notified of it.

This feels complicated to me. But I'm not sure how else to support the requirement of being able to have multiple profiles (if I don't have to support that, things become clearer). I'd appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

Thanks,
Mark

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Profiles

 

Hi All,

I've been working on improving profiles for the past few days and I need help. There are a few goals with this work:

- Some have asked for different profile photos per subgroup
- I think others have asked for customizing individual fields per subgroup. I believe this was for anonymous groups? Please verify.
- I want to support a Member Directory, which means that additional privacy controls are needed
- The current privacy control (i.e. if you have a profile name, your profile is public) is confusing and not granular enough
- The ability to specify (at least at the enterprise level) which profile fields are visible overall.

To support all this, things can get complicated and confusing quickly, which I'd like to avoid. And I don't want a system that makes it easy for people to inadvertently share info they'd rather not share.

Here is one way to accomplish all that. I'm not thrilled with it, because it feels complicated. I'd appreciate your feedback.

On each subscription page, there's a new Profile tab. Click that, and you see your profile for that (sub)group. For a normal group, the fields are copied from your main profile, the one you have now that you access by clicking your name at the top right corner. For a subgroup, the fields are copied from the profile of the parent group (which are initially copied from your main profile).

You can change any of these fields, including the photo. You cannot change the profile name; your profile name is unique to you and all your group profiles.

There's a new dropdown option for a privacy control, to determine the privacy level of your group profile. It has options like:

- Profile public
- Profile viewable by group members and parent group members (assuming this is a subgroup)
- Profile viewable by group members only
- Profile is private (but viewable by moderators/owners)

If the profile is viewable by group members, then your profile will appear in a new member directory for the group. Profile privacy is no longer dependent on whether you have a profile name or not. The profile name is still useful, for preventing imposters (it will be displayed with your profile), and in the future for a feature where people can mention you by @profilename and you'll get notified of it.

This feels complicated to me. But I'm not sure how else to support the requirement of being able to have multiple profiles (if I don't have to support that, things become clearer). I'd appreciate your feedback and suggestions.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Moving Threads Between Groups/Subgroups

Maria
 

On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:52 am, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.

I look forward to seeing how that is implemented. For it to be useful, it will have to handle the case that someone replies to a thread that was in group A when they got the message, but is now in group B, and their reply would have to wind up in group B, properly threaded into place. Anything less means that there will be ongoing work - until a thread is closed - by the moderators moving messages around.
 
Do you anticipate the case where someone replies to an existing thread but edits the group and sends it to the wrong group? It seems like the main use case would be where someone starts a thread (and people start replying to it) in the wrong group. You'd want to move that thread to the correct group and have any further replies go to that group as well.

I hope it's OK but starting a new thread for this topic. I think I'd also expressed interest in a feature such as this a while back.

As we moderate all our messages - what would be great for me is if when a message is in PENDING we could move it to the pending queue of our main or subgroups ( depending where it belongs). This way it doesn't end up in the digest or get sent out via individual email and cause a snowball of replies to the wrong group, and also this way we don't have to reject the message just because it's posted to the wrong group. We'd simply shift it over to the correct group. At that point, any replies would be sent to the the thread in its correct group.

Hope that's helpful info.

Thank you!

Maria


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

 

Hi Jeff,

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

But I will continue to note issues for you even after the migration. I was a programmer for 20 years, so I have some (slightly) relevant background.

Please do!  
And in light of that, as I type this right here and now, I can't find a way to get this new reply to be outside of the quoted text.

I thought I had fixed that. Hmm, apparently not. It's a bit tricky, so it may be a bit.


Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.

I look forward to seeing how that is implemented. For it to be useful, it will have to handle the case that someone replies to a thread that was in group A when they got the message, but is now in group B, and their reply would have to wind up in group B, properly threaded into place. Anything less means that there will be ongoing work - until a thread is closed - by the moderators moving messages around.
 
Do you anticipate the case where someone replies to an existing thread but edits the group and sends it to the wrong group? It seems like the main use case would be where someone starts a thread (and people start replying to it) in the wrong group. You'd want to move that thread to the correct group and have any further replies go to that group as well.

 

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

We'll ask for that if we need it. And that will depend on the implementation as mentioned above.  :)

As per Shal's suggestion, I've just changed it so that deleting subgroups frees up those names instantly.
 

We're editing the wiki in HTML since that appears to have been the default. I've seen references to Markdown, but I just checked the settings page and saw nothing obvious as to how to change the setting from HTML to Markdown. I'll have to look around some more later today when I have more time. And thank you for images coming to the wiki eventually. That will be helpful in some small number of cases for us.

I've just added a dialog to the editor to let you easily link to other wiki pages. Hopefully that will help.

Cheers,
Mark 


locked Updates to Trello

Beta Integration <beta@...>
 

[Beta] New comment on card "Insert link dialog should show other wiki pages." by Mark Fletcher:

There's now a new button, 'Link to Wiki Page', which brings up a dialog letting you easily link to another wiki page.


[Beta] The card "Insert link dialog should show other wiki pages." was archived.


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

 

Mark,

jeffp wrote:

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me
that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse
unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is
life.
You wrote:

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.
Could subgroup names not be reserved after deletion?

I get it for primary groups (that namespace is shared site wide), but subgroup names are local to the primary group (at least, they don't conflict across primary groups). Is it just that the same database and code is used for both?

I don't see a technical or user-experience reason that subgroup names need to be reserved.

Wiki images are coming soon.
Yea!

Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never
added to the TODO list.
Ahem,
https://trello.com/c/vjOwhw8t/224-insert-link-dialog-should-show-other-wiki-pages


Shal
https://groups.io/g/Group_Help
https://groups.io/g/GroupManagersForum


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

This depends entirely on what email system is being used. I use Pegasus Mail on
my desktop machine. It just has one "Reply" button, but when I click that
button it always brings up a list of checkbox options, from which I can select
any or all. The options offered for this purpose are:
'From' field
'Reply-to' field
'Cc' field
'To' field
'Sender' field

Obviously there could be some duplication if I was silly enough to select all
those options.

This gives me total flexibility, and is in no way dependent on any group
settings - these will only affect the 'Reply-to' field, but not the others. So,
persuade your members with the problem to switch to using Pegasus and the
problem will disappear.

Incidentally, I always send and read messages in plain text.

Jim Fisher

On 9 Sep 2016 at 19:18, Jeff Powell wrote:

On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:06 pm, J_catlady wrote:
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 09:53 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:
edit their TO lines when they want to direct a message back to just the OP,
rather than the entire group. As things stand, we can't do that here on
groups.io. 

It seems what you want is for your members to be able to reply to the individual
*rather* than to the group, via email - since you say "just to the OP." We can
do that on Groups.io via the web, using the "Private" button.

But this was my question before, which I posed to Shal: is there really no way
here to "reply to individual" via email? Perhaps I didn't understand the answer.
In any case, that seems to be a lack, regardless of the "both" setting Jeff is
suggesting. And if that lack is fixed (assuming it exists), then is there still
a need for the "both" setting?


 As far as I can tell you, no, there is no way to reply to just the sender via
email.

And please note that email has a zillion standards that are supposed to be
followed (more or less) by the various email programs. You can't add a button to
an email - at least, not a plain text email - to allow someone to reply
differently. But even if you did, that won't change the behavior of the reply
and reply-all functions provided by the email software. Those read certain
headers in the message to determine what "Reply" means, so if you want to change
what those headers say, that has to be a group configuration setting, and that
is what we're talking about here. Giving groups the option to change the content
of the Reply-To header to have a third option: Group, Sender, Both.

I wish it was simpler, but it really isn't. Mark can't change the way gmail, and
MS live mail (or whatever they are calling it this week), and Yahoo mail, and
Apple mail, and a zillion other programs work. All he can do is change the
headers that get sent with messages, and let those programs do what they will
with the results.

--jeffp
--
http://jimellame.tumblr.com - My thoughts on freedom
http://jimella.wordpress.com - political snippets, especially economic policy
http://jimella.livejournal.com - misc. snippets, some political, some not
Forget Google! I search with https://duckduckgo.com which doesn't spy on you


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

Gah... hit the wrong button and submitted without editing. Sorry! Comments and additional mea-culpas below in bold blue.

--jeffp


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:13 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:

Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry you're running into issues setting up your groups.

No worries! This system is easy to use overall, and you are very responsive, which is entirely unlike another groups system you might have heard of, where we're at right now.  :)  Oh, and FYI, I think we're going to ask for the actual migration in about 1.5 weeks. All our moderators have craziness going on this coming week, so we're going to wait for that to settle down before we subject ourselves to 1700 copies of "How do I do X again?"  :)

But I will continue to note issues for you even after the migration. I was a programmer for 20 years, so I have some (slightly) relevant background.

And in light of that, as I type this right here and now, I can't find a way to get this new reply to be outside of the quoted text. I am replying on the UI (not from email) because I've got beta setup to send me the digest and this is the better way for me to respond to complicated questions, but that means I am not in gmail, which I think would just let me hit enter once or twice and I'd be back to normal text. Here in the GUI editor on the site, I can't find a way to remove the formatting (and thus pull this text all the way to the left margin). I tried hitting enter a couple of times, but that didn't work. Tried the "p" style. No luck either. I guess I'd have to go into the HTML mode and muck with the blockquote tags, but that's pretty difficult for some to do, and even harder in that editor with no line breaks present at all.

Is there any way to add a "remove all formatting" button that would apply to the selected text at the time? Gmail has such a feature, as does localwiki.

Anyway... on to your next comment.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

As some of you might recall, I looked into subgroups as part of our coming migration, hoping to solve some issues with hot topics and other things in our neighborhood group. Alas they aren't in a state where they help with that for us, because we can't move messages (and threads) between groups easily and keep replies from showing up in the wrong place. So, unless that changes, subgroups are a no go for us.

Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.

I look forward to seeing how that is implemented. For it to be useful, it will have to handle the case that someone replies to a thread that was in group A when they got the message, but is now in group B, and their reply would have to wind up in group B, properly threaded into place. Anything less means that there will be ongoing work - until a thread is closed - by the moderators moving messages around.
 

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is life.

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

We'll ask for that if we need it. And that will depend on the implementation as mentioned above.  :)

 

I suggest everyone think LONG and HARD about creating any subgroups if you have links anywhere in your system - in messages or the wiki, at least - because if you do, your first subgroup will break all those links.

Not true. When going from 0 to 1 or more subgroups, all original URLs still work, just like the original email addresses still work.

Ah. That is a good point. In our case we didn't start adding things to the wiki until after the subgroup was created. So we saw the impact of going from 1 (or more) subgroups down to 0, but not the other way around. My error. (Never assume... ... you know the rest.)

As you discovered, however, going from at least one subgroup to no subgroups does not preserve the subdomain URLs (nor the subdomain-related email addresses). When developing the system I had to weigh the effort involved vs how often that would happen. I didn't think people going from subgroups to no subgroups would happen much/at all, outside of people testing the system. If this is an incorrect assumption, I can certainly look into adding in the redirect system for that.

I wish I had an answer for that which would be helpful. Probably the deletion of all subgroups will be rare, as you suspect, but I really don't know. Do you have any stats on how many groups use subgroups now? And how many are active? Those might start pointing towards an answer. (That's a rhetorical question. Please don't waste your time answering that for me!)

And while I am on this rant - sorry! - this wiki is very limiting. No images? Real URLs for internal links rather than the much simpler page name schemes used by most wikis? Without wanting to make even more work for myself, is there anything that can be done about that?

Wiki images are coming soon (as part of the work I did adding database images this week, I did some of the work required to support wiki images). Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never added to the TODO list. Do you edit the wiki using Markdown or HTML? I'd definitely like to make it easier to link to other pages, through a dialog popup or something similar.

We're editing the wiki in HTML since that appears to have been the default. I've seen references to Markdown, but I just checked the settings page and saw nothing obvious as to how to change the setting from HTML to Markdown. I'll have to look around some more later today when I have more time. And thank you for images coming to the wiki eventually. That will be helpful in some small number of cases for us.

Thanks,
Mark 

No, thank you!
--jeffp

 


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:13 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry you're running into issues setting up your groups.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

As some of you might recall, I looked into subgroups as part of our coming migration, hoping to solve some issues with hot topics and other things in our neighborhood group. Alas they aren't in a state where they help with that for us, because we can't move messages (and threads) between groups easily and keep replies from showing up in the wrong place. So, unless that changes, subgroups are a no go for us.

Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.
 

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is life.

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

 

I suggest everyone think LONG and HARD about creating any subgroups if you have links anywhere in your system - in messages or the wiki, at least - because if you do, your first subgroup will break all those links.

Not true. When going from 0 to 1 or more subgroups, all original URLs still work, just like the original email addresses still work.

As you discovered, however, going from at least one subgroup to no subgroups does not preserve the subdomain URLs (nor the subdomain-related email addresses). When developing the system I had to weigh the effort involved vs how often that would happen. I didn't think people going from subgroups to no subgroups would happen much/at all, outside of people testing the system. If this is an incorrect assumption, I can certainly look into adding in the redirect system for that.

And while I am on this rant - sorry! - this wiki is very limiting. No images? Real URLs for internal links rather than the much simpler page name schemes used by most wikis? Without wanting to make even more work for myself, is there anything that can be done about that?

Wiki images are coming soon (as part of the work I did adding database images this week, I did some of the work required to support wiki images). Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never added to the TODO list. Do you edit the wiki using Markdown or HTML? I'd definitely like to make it easier to link to other pages, through a dialog popup or something similar.

Thanks,
Mark 

 


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:26 am, Jeff Powell wrote:
The problem with those links is that they do not include the message context

I was unaware of that. However, Groups.io intentionally sweeps the prior message into ellipses for onlist replies, as well. In fact, if the reply consists of nothing but a top post, everything below it (even if the responder intentionally wants to include some text) gets swept into ellipses.

I was unaware of how "Reply to Sender" works for email and plan on checking it out now. 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 10:05 pm, Mark Fletcher wrote:
Jeff,

I understand what you're wanting to accomplish. I think one, less obvious to non-techie users solution, is to use the reply to sender or reply to all functions in your email program and have your group set to reply-to sender. 

But, like I said, that's not good for normal people. Actually probably not good for most people. This is one more reason why having email as the main interface for email groups is a bit of a curse. We can't control the interface. But that's an aside.

So I just implemented the Reply to Group and Sender option. I wonder if our message-id munging by default will cause duplicates for some people, but I'm not sure. Please check it out and let me know if you see any issues.

Thanks,
Mark

 Thank you sir!  We'll put it through it's paces and see if there are issues. If so, we'll let you know.

--jeffp


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:59 pm, J_catlady wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:13 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:
If someone can show me how that was happening - so I can write a description of that and turn it into instructions for those on our group who want to reply to just the OP

I just looked at an email footer and it seems idiot-proof. Just click on the "reply to sender" link. I am still not understanding the problem. Did you try that? (I assume that *you* are not using plain-text email?)
--
J

The problem with those links is that they do not include the message context, which is unlike the reply and reply-all functions in an email program.

So, yes they work, if they are present, but now the user has to go copy & paste the context from the message to finish the job.

--jeffp

 


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

Jeff,

I understand what you're wanting to accomplish. I think one, less obvious to non-techie users solution, is to use the reply to sender or reply to all functions in your email program and have your group set to reply-to sender. 

But, like I said, that's not good for normal people. Actually probably not good for most people. This is one more reason why having email as the main interface for email groups is a bit of a curse. We can't control the interface. But that's an aside.

So I just implemented the Reply to Group and Sender option. I wonder if our message-id munging by default will cause duplicates for some people, but I'm not sure. Please check it out and let me know if you see any issues.

Thanks,
Mark


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 09:13 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:
If someone can show me how that was happening - so I can write a description of that and turn it into instructions for those on our group who want to reply to just the OP

I just looked at an email footer and it seems idiot-proof. Just click on the "reply to sender" link. I am still not understanding the problem. Did you try that? (I assume that *you* are not using plain-text email?)
--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Site updates #changelog

 

Changes to the site this week:

  • CHANGE: Updated credit card expiry years.
  • CHANGE: Thread summaries have various leading spaces removed.
  • NEW: Per-group Force HTML Emails checkbox.
  • NEW: Image column type for databases.
  • NEW: Ability to hide columns when viewing a database table.
  • CHANGE: Align 'Your Groups' in header with main body of page.
  • BUGFIX: Links to view topics by hashtag weren't working.
  • INTERNAL: Upgraded to Go 1.7.1, hopefully will fix a DNS issue.
  • NEW: Databases are using the new hashtag colors.
  • BUGFIX: Reject messages with empty subjects but with hashtags.
  • INTERNAL: New queue/server for uploading attachments to s3, to guard against s3/DNS downtime.
  • BUGFIX: Don't display the Picture icon for add pictures when posting to groups that don't allow attachments.

Have a good weekend everybody.

Mark


locked Re: unexpected interactions between the wiki and subgroups

 

Hi Jeff,

I'm sorry you're running into issues setting up your groups.

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

As some of you might recall, I looked into subgroups as part of our coming migration, hoping to solve some issues with hot topics and other things in our neighborhood group. Alas they aren't in a state where they help with that for us, because we can't move messages (and threads) between groups easily and keep replies from showing up in the wrong place. So, unless that changes, subgroups are a no go for us.

Moving threads between subgroups is on the todo list and definitely something I want to happen sooner rather than later.
 

Then I discussed an issue about deleting a subgroup, where Mark told me that deleting a subgroup does not free up the subgroup name for reuse unless you specifically ask for them to free it for you. OK. Such is life.

Right. Happy to free up a group name at any time.

 

I suggest everyone think LONG and HARD about creating any subgroups if you have links anywhere in your system - in messages or the wiki, at least - because if you do, your first subgroup will break all those links.

Not true. When going from 0 to 1 or more subgroups, all original URLs still work, just like the original email addresses still work.

As you discovered, however, going from at least one subgroup to no subgroups does not preserve the subdomain URLs (nor the subdomain-related email addresses). When developing the system I had to weigh the effort involved vs how often that would happen. I didn't think people going from subgroups to no subgroups would happen much/at all, outside of people testing the system. If this is an incorrect assumption, I can certainly look into adding in the redirect system for that.

And while I am on this rant - sorry! - this wiki is very limiting. No images? Real URLs for internal links rather than the much simpler page name schemes used by most wikis? Without wanting to make even more work for myself, is there anything that can be done about that?

Wiki images are coming soon (as part of the work I did adding database images this week, I did some of the work required to support wiki images). Nobody's requested a different way to do links, so it was never added to the TODO list. Do you edit the wiki using Markdown or HTML? I'd definitely like to make it easier to link to other pages, through a dialog popup or something similar.

Thanks,
Mark 


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

If someone can show me how that was happening - so I can write a description of that and turn it into instructions for those on our group who want to reply to just the OP - that might give me a better option than "Go find the OP's email address somewhere in the headers of the email or in the UI of your email client software. Copy & paste it into the TO line of your reply message, and delete the full group address while you're there." Right now that looks like the only way to do this.

Also note that if this was a problem unique to just a couple of people, it could have been that their email software was improperly handling (and possibly ignoring) the Reply-To header in the email messages. If their software just looked at the "From" header and replied to that, it might have done what you suggest. But such behavior is entirely software dependent, and not under the control of the moderators of any group.

--jeffp


On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 08:51 pm, J_catlady wrote:

Jeff, This used to happen all the time, with a couple of members in particular. I'm certain they used email. One of them was always complaining that her message 'hadn't posted,' when actually she'd sent it just to the OP. Neither she nor the OP were aware and thought they were continuing their conversation onlist. I'll try to check it out.


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 9, 2016, at 8:48 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 08:30 pm, J_catlady wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 07:42 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:

Problem: you have a group that has the reply set to the group. Fine.  You have a thread going there, and someone wants to reply (via email, not in the groups.io UI) just to the sender of a message, not to the entire group.

How do they do that?

If the message was in plain text, doing so is not easy at all.

So the problem is only with plain-text emails? Am I understanding this correctly? Because it's my understanding that Groups.io DOES provide a way to reply to an individual, either via email or via the web. In fact, people used to do it inadvertently so often that a whole discussion ensued, resulting in (among other things) the addition of the word "private" when someone does it, to make sure the recipient knows it's a private message. 

--
J

 Nope. The problem is general. Plain text emails just make it worse by removing the "reply to sender" link in the link set at the end of the message.

(That said, Mark just announced he's created some way to force all emails into HTML mode, which may eliminate that particular wrinkle. The moderators in our big group are discussing that new option and while I am not yet sure, I suspect we will turn it on and at least get that issue ironed out.)

But no... even in HTML formatted email, it is much more difficult to reply to the sender in groups.io with the default reply option being "group" than it is in Yahoo Groups with the default reply option being "group and sender".

If there is some way to reply to just the sender - from an email client, not the UI - when the group's default reply-to is "group" I haven't found it yet. Please enlighten me!

--jeffp


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

 


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

Jeff, This used to happen all the time, with a couple of members in particular. I'm certain they used email. One of them was always complaining that her message 'hadn't posted,' when actually she'd sent it just to the OP. Neither she nor the OP were aware and thought they were continuing their conversation onlist. I'll try to check it out.


Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 9, 2016, at 8:48 PM, Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 08:30 pm, J_catlady wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 07:42 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:

Problem: you have a group that has the reply set to the group. Fine.  You have a thread going there, and someone wants to reply (via email, not in the groups.io UI) just to the sender of a message, not to the entire group.

How do they do that?

If the message was in plain text, doing so is not easy at all.

So the problem is only with plain-text emails? Am I understanding this correctly? Because it's my understanding that Groups.io DOES provide a way to reply to an individual, either via email or via the web. In fact, people used to do it inadvertently so often that a whole discussion ensued, resulting in (among other things) the addition of the word "private" when someone does it, to make sure the recipient knows it's a private message. 

--
J

 Nope. The problem is general. Plain text emails just make it worse by removing the "reply to sender" link in the link set at the end of the message.

(That said, Mark just announced he's created some way to force all emails into HTML mode, which may eliminate that particular wrinkle. The moderators in our big group are discussing that new option and while I am not yet sure, I suspect we will turn it on and at least get that issue ironed out.)

But no... even in HTML formatted email, it is much more difficult to reply to the sender in groups.io with the default reply option being "group" than it is in Yahoo Groups with the default reply option being "group and sender".

If there is some way to reply to just the sender - from an email client, not the UI - when the group's default reply-to is "group" I haven't found it yet. Please enlighten me!

--jeffp


--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

Jeff Powell <jrpstonecarver@...>
 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 08:30 pm, J_catlady wrote:
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 07:42 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:

Problem: you have a group that has the reply set to the group. Fine.  You have a thread going there, and someone wants to reply (via email, not in the groups.io UI) just to the sender of a message, not to the entire group.

How do they do that?

If the message was in plain text, doing so is not easy at all.

So the problem is only with plain-text emails? Am I understanding this correctly? Because it's my understanding that Groups.io DOES provide a way to reply to an individual, either via email or via the web. In fact, people used to do it inadvertently so often that a whole discussion ensued, resulting in (among other things) the addition of the word "private" when someone does it, to make sure the recipient knows it's a private message. 

--
J

 Nope. The problem is general. Plain text emails just make it worse by removing the "reply to sender" link in the link set at the end of the message.

(That said, Mark just announced he's created some way to force all emails into HTML mode, which may eliminate that particular wrinkle. The moderators in our big group are discussing that new option and while I am not yet sure, I suspect we will turn it on and at least get that issue ironed out.)

But no... even in HTML formatted email, it is much more difficult to reply to the sender in groups.io with the default reply option being "group" than it is in Yahoo Groups with the default reply option being "group and sender".

If there is some way to reply to just the sender - from an email client, not the UI - when the group's default reply-to is "group" I haven't found it yet. Please enlighten me!

--jeffp


locked Re: Reply to both Group and Sender?

 

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 07:42 pm, Jeff Powell wrote:

Problem: you have a group that has the reply set to the group. Fine.  You have a thread going there, and someone wants to reply (via email, not in the groups.io UI) just to the sender of a message, not to the entire group.

How do they do that?

If the message was in plain text, doing so is not easy at all.

So the problem is only with plain-text emails? Am I understanding this correctly? Because it's my understanding that Groups.io DOES provide a way to reply to an individual, either via email or via the web. In fact, people used to do it inadvertently so often that a whole discussion ensued, resulting in (among other things) the addition of the word "private" when someone does it, to make sure the recipient knows it's a private message. 

--
J

Messages are the sole opinion of the author. 

I wish I could shut up, but I can't, and I won't. - Desmond Tutu

18621 - 18640 of 29453